Search

Objectives People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. Methods As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. Results 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: ‘Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure’ and ‘Lack of support from family and friends’. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: ‘Family and work commitments’, ‘Existing health conditions as competing priorities’ and ‘Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. Conclusions A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. Practice implications Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

Purpose of review Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide, killing approximately 900,000 people each year. An individual’s risk of developing CRC is multi-factorial with known risk factors including increasing age, male sex, family history of CRC and raised body mass index. Population-based screening programmes for CRC exist in many countries, and in the United Kingdom (UK), screening is performed through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Screening programmes offer a population-based approach for those at “average risk”, and do not typically offer enhanced screening for groups at increased risk. In the UK, such patients are managed via non-screening symptomatic services but in a non-systematic way. Recent findings There is growing evidence that conditions such as cystic fibrosis and a history of childhood cancer are associated with higher risk of CRC, and surveillance of these groups is advocated by some organizations; however, national recommendations do not exist in most countries. Summary We review the evidence for screening “high risk” groups not covered within most guidelines and discuss health economic issues requiring consideration acknowledging that the demand on colonoscopy services is already overwhelming.

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities., Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention and early diagnosis. This Perspective explores the rationale for and approach to risk stratification for CRC prevention and diagnosis, including the limitations, advantages and future challenges for this approach.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, are at an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. It is well accepted that this risk increases after 8–10 years of disease duration. Patients should be offered a surveillance colonoscopy after this time. Previously, white-light endoscopy with random biopsies every 10 cm was undertaken for surveillance, but recent evidence suggests that chromoendoscopy along with targeted biopsy is superior to this and the other available methods. This article reviews the available evidence for IBD surveillance, surveillance guidelines and the evidence for chromoendoscopy. Additionally, an overview of the assessment, reporting of any visible abnormal lesions and management of subsequently proven dysplastic lesions is given.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding ‘OR’ terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was

Introduction Obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with colorectal neoplasia.1 2 In the UK, colonoscopy is performed for patient symptoms, Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), family history or surveillance. We aimed to further explore obesity and NAFLD as risk factors with a view to developing a risk model. Methods OSCAR was a cross sectional study recruiting patients attending for colonoscopy. Patients’ medical history, smoking habits, alcohol intake, medication, family history of CRC, waist circumference/height/weight and bloods results were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to test associations between obesity, NAFLD, other risk factors and colorectal adenomas. Preliminary results are reported. Results 1430 patients were recruited (BCSP 410 [28.6%]; symptomatic 1020 [71.3%]). 698 were male (48.8%) with median age: 59 years. The burden of obesity and liver disease was high (reported in a further abstract). 457 patients (31.9%) had colorectal adenomas, 170 (11.9%) had advanced adenomas, and 59 (4.1%) had CRC. Statin use, smoking, metabolic syndrome, abnormal fatty liver index and ALT level were significantly associated with adenoma in univariate analysis, but not in the multivariable model. Variables in the final multivariate model are displayed below. Neither obesity nor NAFLD (established diagnosis; patient reported or in medical notes) were independently associated with adenoma risk in univariate or multivariate analysis (Obesity: multivariable (mv) OR 1.14 [95%CI 0.9–1.4]; NAFLD: mvOR 0.7 [95%CI 0.3–1.5]). Conclusions Older age, referral route, alcohol excess and hypertension were significantly associated with colorectal adenoma. After accounting for these factors, obesity and NAFLD were not independently associated with adenoma. Further work is exploring adenoma burden and more detailed modelling. References Okabayashi K, et al. Body mass index category as a risk factor for colorectal adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(8):1175–85. Ding W, et al. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(1):322–333.

Introduction Bowel cancer is the UK’s 2nd most common cause of cancer death. To reduce this risk, the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55-year olds for sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening-BSS). A national patient survey showed much higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on compliance and screening effectiveness. Studies indicate that a new technique using water-assisted scope insertion (WAS) may minimise bowel distension, hence reduce pain and also increase polyp detection. We aimed to assess the effect of WAS on procedural pain and adenomatous polyp detection, compared to CO2 assisted scope insertion. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to ascertain patient preferences, and to survey trial endoscopists’ technique preference after the trial. Methods We performed an RCT of 1123 people undergoing BSS, randomised 1:1 to WAS (for which the endoscopists received training) or CO2. The primary outcome was patient-reported moderate/severe pain. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (p=0.47;logistic regression; predictive marginal estimates 14% in WAS and 15% in CO2). Moderate/severe pain was significantly lower in both arms than in the previous national survey (p ADR was significantly higher in the CO2 arm (p=0.03, logistic regression; odds ratio 1.45 (95% CI; 1.03, 2.04); predictive marginal estimates 11% in WAS and 15% in CO2). However, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms and there was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. Cost-consequence analysis revealed a negligible difference between the two techniques. The DCE revealed that patients care more about the risk of missing an abnormality and risk of a serious complication than the level of pain experienced. Exit survey of trial endoscopists revealed 10 preferred WAS, one preferred CO2 and 4 were neutral. Conclusions In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. There is no need for screening sigmoidoscopists to switch to a WAS technique. Caution should be given to monitoring ADR if WAS is used in enema-prepared sigmoidoscopies. Research funded by NIHR RfPB. ISRCTN: 81466870

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was

ObjectivesThe English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps.DesignThe WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured.Results1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques.ConclusionIn the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique.Trial registration numberISRCTN81466870.

BackgroundMeasuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM.MethodsPatients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.Results35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five ‘procedural stages’ were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety).ConclusionWe identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

ObjectiveLow adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).DesignPatients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.Results1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, PConclusionEV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.Trial registration numberNCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

Background and Aims Distal attachments placed on the colonoscope tip may positively affect performance by assisting insertion and polyp detection. The original Endocuff (ARC Medical Design, Leeds, United Kingdom) appears to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but no data assess the performance of the second-generation Endocuff Vision. Methods A pilot service evaluation study (April 2013 to September 2014) was conducted on patients with positive fecal occult blood tests within the National Bowel Cancer Programme during 3 consecutive periods: precuff/no device used, during-cuff/device used, and postcuff/no device used. During the middle period the use of the Endocuff Vision by the 4 screening-accredited colonoscopists was discretional (nonrandomized design). Data were analyzed using pairwise comparisons during the 3 designated periods to examine key performance indicators: adenoma detection, procedural time, sedation requirements, and patient comfort. Results Four hundred ten complete colonoscopies were performed (137 precuff, 136 cuff, and 137 postcuff period). Overall, there was a notable increase in the mean ADR of 16% (P Conclusions In this pilot service evaluation study, the use of the Endocuff Vision appears to be associated with an improvement in overall colonoscopy operator performance. We found increased ADR and MAP as well as decreased time for colonoscope insertion and withdrawal time with no increase in sedation requirements or patient discomfort.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped?two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG’s guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThis cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

ObjectivesAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population.DesignBowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken.Results3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR.ConclusionEV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further.Trial registration numbersNCT03072472,ISRCTN30005319and CPMS ID 33224.

BackgroundThe omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile.ObjectivesThe objectives were to determine whether or not EPA prevents colorectal adenomas, either alone or in combination with aspirin, and to assess the safety/tolerability of EPA, in the free fatty acid (FFA) form or as the triglyceride (TG), and aspirin.DesignThis was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.SettingThe NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).ParticipantsPatients (aged 55–73 years) identified as ‘high risk’ (i.e. those who have five or more colorectal adenomas of InterventionsThe interventions were capsules containing 2000 mg of 99% EPA–FFA or 2780 mg of 90% EPA–TG (equivalent to 2000 mg of FFA) taken daily, or identical placebo capsules; and 300 mg of aspirin taken daily, or an identical placebo, enteric-coated tablet. Both were taken for ≈1 year until surveillance colonoscopy. All participants and staff were unaware of treatment allocation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of participants with one or more colorectal adenomas [adenoma detection rate (ADRa)] at surveillance colonoscopy. Outcomes were analysed for all participants with observable follow-up data by an ‘at-the-margins’ approach, adjusted for BCSP site and by the need for repeat baseline endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures – these included the number of colorectal adenomas per patient [mean adenomas per patient (MAP)], ‘advanced’ ADRa and colorectal adenoma location (right/left) and type (conventional/serrated).ResultsBetween November 2011 and June 2016, 709 participants were randomised, with 707 providing data (80% male, mean age 65 years). The four treatment groups (EPA + aspirin,n = 177; EPA,n = 179; aspirin,n = 177; placebo,n = 176) were well matched for baseline characteristics. Tissue EPA levels and tolerability were similar for FFA and TG users. There was no evidence of any difference in ADRa between EPA users (62%) and non-users (61%) [risk difference –0.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –8.8% to 6.9%] or for aspirin users (61%) versus non-users (62%) (risk difference –0.6%, 95% CI –8.5% to 7.2%). There was no evidence of an interaction between EPA and aspirin for ADRa. There was no evidence of any effect on advanced ADRa of either EPA (risk difference –0.6%, 95% CI –4.4% to 3.1%) or aspirin (risk difference –0.3%, 95% CI –4.1% to 3.5%). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in MAP [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90), with preventative efficacy against conventional (IRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94), serrated (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87) and right-sided (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88) lesions, but not left-sided (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06) adenomas. There was evidence of chemopreventive efficacy of EPA on conventional (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99) and left-sided (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94) adenomas, but not on total MAP (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05) or serrated (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.60) or right-sided (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22) adenomas. EPA and aspirin treatment were well tolerated, with excess mild/moderate gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) in the EPA alone group. There were six GI bleeding AEs.ConclusionEPA and aspirin treatment were not associated with a reduction in ADRa. However, both agents displayed evidence of chemopreventive efficacy, based on adenoma number reduction, which was specific to adenoma type and location, and is compatible with known anti-CRC activity of aspirin.LimitationsLimitations of the trial included the failure to recruit to the target sample size of 853, and an unexpected switch of EPA formulation mid-trial.Future workA future objective should be to understand the mechanism(s) of action of EPA and aspirin using the trial biobank. Established trial infrastructure will enable future trials in the BCSP.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN05926847.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership.

Introduction Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important measure of mucosal visualisation at lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates with a 3% reduction in PCCRCs with every 1% increase in ADR. In the English flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme (Bowel scope) there is also significant variation in ADRs across screening centres. Large studies have demonstrated improved detection rates during screening procedures utilising Endocuff Vision™ (EV). The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Endocuff Vision on ADR in a flexible sigmoidoscopy bowel cancer screening population. Methods B-ADENOMA was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English Bowel scope screening centres, performed between February 2017 and April 2018. Patients attending for Bowel scope screening were randomised to Endocuff™-assisted Bowel scope (EAB) or Standard Bowel scope (SB). Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) was compared between trial arms on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary analyses compared Mean number of Adenomas per Procedure (MAP), Polyp Detection Rate (PDR), characteristics and location of polyps, procedural characteristics between arms and made comparisons with national Bowel scope data. Patient experience, procedure extent and complication rates were assessed for non-inferiority. Results 3222 patients were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between the two arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). Also, no statistically significant differences between arms were found in MAP, PDR, polyp morphology or location. Patient experience and complication rates were similar in both arms. The cuff exchange rate in the EAB arm was 4.2%. ADR in the SB arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR (9.1%). Conclusions EV did not improve Bowel scope ADR when compared with standard Bowel scope. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. This suggests that, where detection rates are already high, use of EV does not improve detection further. Reasons for the high ADR in the SB arm require further exploration but may include selection effects at centre level and contamination effects at endoscopist level.

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment.DesignA single-stage phase II trial.SettingSouth Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.ParticipantsIndividuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study.InterventionConsenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled.Primary outcome measureThe number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment.Secondary outcome measuresBarriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs’ evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis.ResultsOf those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload.ConclusionsPN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population.Trial registration numberISRCTN13314752; Results.

To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme. Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression. Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p

Background: We measured biomarkers of tumour growth and vascularity in interval and screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in order to determine whether rapid tumour growth might contribute to interval CRC (a CRC diagnosed between a negative guaiac stool test and the next scheduled screening episode). Methods: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 71 CRCs (screen-detected 43, interval 28) underwent immunohistochemistry for CD31 and Ki-67, in order to measure the microvessel density (MVD) and proliferation index (PI), respectively, as well as microsatellite instability (MSI) testing. Results: Interval CRCs were larger (P=0.02) and were more likely to exhibit venous invasion (P=0.005) than screen-detected tumours. There was no significant difference in MVD or PI between interval and screen-detected CRCs. More interval CRCs displayed MSI-high (14%) compared with screen-detected tumours (5%). A significantly (P=0.005) higher proportion (51%) of screen-detected CRC resection specimens contained at least one polyp compared with interval CRC (18%) resections. Conclusions: We found no evidence of biological differences between interval and screen-detected CRCs, consistent with the low sensitivity of guaiac stool testing as the main driver of interval CRC. The contribution of synchronous adenomas to occult blood loss for screening requires further investigation.

Objective The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. Methods Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age–sex–standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. Results Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426–205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

Understanding patients' experience of screening programs is crucial for service improvement. The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to achieve this by sending out questionnaires to all patients who undergo a colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal occult blood test result. This study used the questionnaire data to report the experiences of these patients.Data on patients who underwent colonoscopy between 2011 and 2012 were extracted from the BCSP database. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize key questionnaire items relating to informed choice, psychological wellbeing, physical experience, and after-effects. Multilevel logistic regression was used to test for associations with variables of interest: sex, age, socioeconomic status, colonoscopy results, and screening center performance (adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, proportion of colonoscopies involving sedation).Data from 50,858 patients (79.3 % of those eligible) were analyzed. A majority reported a positive experience on items relating to informed choice (e. g. 95.7 % felt they understood the risks) and psychological wellbeing (e. g. 98.3 % felt they were treated with respect). However, an appreciable proportion experienced unexpected test discomfort (21.0 %) or pain at home (14.8 %). There were few notable demographic differences, although women were more likely than men to experience unexpected discomfort (25.1 % vs. 18.0 %; P 0.01) and pain at home (18.2 % vs. 12.3 %; P 0.01). No associations with center-level variables were apparent.Colonoscopy experience was generally positive, suggesting high satisfaction with the BCSP. Reported pain and unexpected discomfort were more negative than most other outcomes (particularly for women); measures to improve this should be considered.

We read with great interest the article by Gudra et al 1 reporting a faecal immunochemical test (FIT; OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical) commonly used in colonic neoplasia screening as a reliable sampling device for microbiome profiling when compared with immediately frozen samples from whole stool. The potential to use the FIT routinely completed by approximately 3 million participants annually as part of the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme2 to understand the role of gut microbiome in colorectal neoplasia holds great promise, not least because of the convenience to individuals, cost-savings associated with use of routinely collected samples, and methodological advantages of samples collected before microbiome-altering procedures (eg, bowel cleansing).3 We aimed to validate and expand on the finding of Gudra et al 1 by investigating performance of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) FIT, analysing more subjects, testing longer-term storage, investigating different methods of concentration and comparing with OMNIgene.GUT (OG; DNA Genotek), a widely used research device for stool DNA preservation at ambient temperature.4 We considered bacterial profile stability over time, mimicking real-world research scenarios with storage of FIT samples for up to 20 days prior to DNA extraction. We …

Background We previously initiated a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of two self-referral reminders and a theory-based leaflet (sent 12 and 24 months after the initial invitation) to increase participation within the English Bowel Scope Screening program. Purpose This study reports the results following the second reminder. Methods Men and women included in the initial sample (n = 1,383) were re-assessed for eligibility 24 months after their invitation (12 months after the first reminder) and excluded if they had attended screening, moved away, or died. Eligible adults received the same treatment they were allocated 12 months previous, that is, no reminder (“control”), or a self-referral reminder with either the standard information booklet (“Reminder and Standard Information Booklet”) or theory-based leaflet designed using the Behavior Change Wheel (“Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet”). The primary outcome was the proportion screened within each group 12 weeks after the second reminder. Results In total, 1,218 (88.1%) individuals were eligible. Additional uptake following the second reminder was 0.4% (2/460), 4.8% (19/399), and 7.9% (29/366) in the control, Reminder and Standard Information Booklet, and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups, respectively. When combined with the first reminder, the overall uptake for each group was 0.7% (3/461), 14.5% (67/461), and 21.5% (99/461). Overall uptake was significantly higher in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups than in the control (odds ratio [OR] = 26.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1–84.0, p < .001 and OR = 46.9, 95% CI = 14.7–149.9, p < .001, respectively), and significantly higher in the Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet group than in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet group (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3–2.6, p < .001). Conclusion A second reminder increased uptake among former nonparticipants. The added value of the theory-based leaflet highlights a potential benefit to reviewing the current information booklet. Trials Registry Number ISRCTN44293755., Reminder letters, which prompt ‘no-shows’ to self-refer for bowel cancer screening, increase uptake and thereby the total number of pre-cancerous lesions detected.

The omega-3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin are candidate colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention agents, which both have proof-of-concept for anti-CRC activity in man, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Methods A randomised, placebo-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial of EPA free fatty acid (FFA) 2 g daily (E; either as the FFA or triglyceride [TG]) and/or aspirin 300 mg daily (A) in ‘high risk’ patients (≥3 adenomas if one≥10 mm, or ≥5 small adenomas) identified at screening colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADRa; the% with any adenoma) at one year surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints included mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP), ‘advanced’ ADRa, adenoma location (right/left) and type (conventional/serrated). Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis using an ‘at the margins’ approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. We recruited 709 participants (80% male, mean[SD] 65[5] years, 82% BMI >25 Kg/m2). The four treatment groups (E+A n=177; E n=178; A n=176; placebo n=176) were well-matched at baseline. There were no differences in EPA levels or tolerability between FFA and TG users. Overall, ADRa was 62%, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.87–1.12]) or aspirin (0.99 [0.87–1.12]). Aspirin use was associated with reduced total MAP (incidence rate ratio 0.78 [95%CI 0.68–0.90]), with evidence of an effect on serrated (0.46 [0.25–0.87]) and right-sided (0.73 [0.61–0.88]) lesions. Evidence that EPA reduced MAP was restricted to conventional (0.86 [0.74–0.99]), left-sided (0.75 [0.60–0.94]) adenomas, but not total MAP (0.91 [0.79–1.05]). EPA and aspirin treatment were well tolerated with an excess of mild-moderate GI adverse events (AEs), especially in the E arm. There were 6 bleeding AEs across the treatment arms. Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment was associated with reduction in the ADRa in ‘high risk’ patients. Secondary analyses revealed no evidence that EPA was effective in reducing the total number of adenomas, but there was some evidence for efficacy of aspirin. Both agents displayed effects on MAP, which were adenoma type- and site-specific, compatible with known anti-(proximal) CRC activity of aspirin. Best use of EPA and aspirin may need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence. ISRCTN05926847 – This project was funded by the EME Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the MRC, NHS, NIHR or the DoH.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

AIM Medication may be used to manage discomfort during colonoscopy but practice varies. The relationship between medication use and comfort during colonoscopy was examined in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. METHODS Data related to patient comfort and medication use from all 113,316 examinations performed within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012 were analysed. Comfort was rated on the five-point Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale: 1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort. Scores of 4 and 5 were considered to indicate significant discomfort. Correlations between the proportion of examinations associated with significant discomfort and the amounts of medication used by colonoscopists were assessed using Spearman's ρ. Logistic regression modelling examined the independent predictors of significant discomfort. RESULTS Patients had a mean age of 65.7 years, and 58% were male. Examinations were performed by 290 endoscopists. In 91% of examinations, there was no significant discomfort reported during examination; however, there was considerable variation between individual colonoscopists (range 76.1-99.2%).Intravenous sedation and opiate analgesia were used during most examinations, but there was wide variation between colonoscopists, with a median (range) usage of 95.1% (4.1-100%) and 97.3% (5.6-100%), respectively. There was no association between the amount of sedation and analgesia used and significant discomfort (ρ

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer affecting men and women in England. The introduction of National Bowel Cancer Screening in 2006 has led to a rise in the proportion of colorectal cancers detected at an early stage. Many screen-detected cancers are malignant colorectal polyps and may potentially be cured with endoscopic resection, without recourse to the risk of major surgery or prolonged adjuvant therapies. Endoscopic decision making is crucial to select those early lesions that may be suitable for local endoscopic excision as well as identifying lesions for surgical resection, thus avoiding unnecessary surgical intervention in some and ensuring potentially curative surgery in others. This paper uses the current evidence base to provide a structured approach to the assessment of potentially malignant polyps and their management. http://group.bmj.com/products/journals/instructions-for-authors/licence-forms.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and North America. Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the colon but is not perfect, and small or flat adenomas can be missed which increases the risk of patients subsequently developing colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the most widely used marker of quality, and low rates are associated with increased rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Standards of colonoscopy and adenoma detection vary widely between different endoscopists. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rate are therefore required. Many devices have been purported to increase adenoma detection rate. This review looks at current available evidence for device technology to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy.

Introduction Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms and is an important therapeutic tool for colonic polypectomy. This paper is aimed at the general physician and examines the role of colonoscopy in very elderly patients by exploring the particular risks in this population, the yield of colonoscopy and potential alternative investigations. Sources of data Original research and review articles were identified through selective PubMed searches. Guidelines were identified through interrogation of national and international society websites in addition to PubMed searches. Areas of agreement Advanced age alone is not a reason to avoid investigation. The decision to perform colonoscopy in this population must take into account indication and yield, risks of the procedure and bowel preparation, physical fitness of the patient, potential alternative and the ability to consent. As a general rule, the principle of 'first doing no harm' should be applied and requires balancing of the risks of the procedure and preparation with the benefits of doing the test. Areas of controversy There is no defined upper age limit at which colonoscopy is contraindicated, however; the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme stops inviting patients for screening and surveillance colonoscopy at age 75. Growing points and areas timely for developing research The concepts of 'first do no harm' and shared decision-making are not new but are increasingly important, particularly in this patient group. It is crucial to provide patients with information about risks, benefits and alternative investigations to empower their decision-making.

Serrated polyps have been recognised in the last decade\ud as important premalignant lesions accounting for\ud between 15% and 30% of colorectal cancers. There is\ud therefore a clinical need for guidance on how to manage\ud these lesions; however, the evidence base is limited. A\ud working group was commission by the British Society of\ud Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy section to review the\ud available evidence and develop a position statement to\ud provide clinical guidance until the evidence becomes\ud available to support a formal guideline. The scope of the\ud position statement was wide-ranging and included:\ud evidence that serrated lesions have premalignant\ud potential; detection and resection of serrated lesions;\ud surveillance strategies after detection of serrated lesions;\ud special situations—serrated polyposis syndrome\ud (including surgery) and serrated lesions in colitis;\ud education, audit and benchmarks and research\ud questions. Statements on these issues were proposed\ud where the evidence was deemed sufficient, and reevaluated\ud modified via a Delphi process until >80%\ud agreement was reached. The Grading of\ud Recommendations, Assessment, Development and\ud Evaluations (GRADE) tool was used to assess the\ud strength of evidence and strength of recommendation\ud for finalised statements. Key recommendation: we\ud suggest that until further evidence on the efficacy or\ud otherwise of surveillance are published, patients with\ud sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that appear associated\ud with a higher risk of future neoplasia or colorectal\ud cancer (SSLs ≥10 mm or serrated lesions harbouring\ud dysplasia including traditional serrated adenomas)\ud should be offered a one-off colonoscopic surveillance\ud examination at 3 years (weak recommendation, low\ud quality evidence, 90% agreement).

Background: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) detected through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) have been shown to have a more favourable outcome compared to non-screen-detected cancers. The aim was to identify whether this was solely due to the earlier stage shift of these cancers, or whether other factors were involved. Methods: A combination of a regional CRC registry (Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group) and the BCSP database were used to identify screen-detected and interval cancers (diagnosed after a negative faecal occult blood test, before the next screening round), diagnosed between April 2007 and March 2010, within the North East of England. For each Dukes' stage, patient demographics, tumour characteristics, and survival rates were compared between these two groups. Results: Overall, 322 screen-detected cancers were compared against 192 interval cancers. Screen-detected Dukes' C and D CRCs had a superior survival rate compared with interval cancers (P=0.014 and P=0.04, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression showed that Dukes' stage, tumour location, and diagnostic group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.69, P

Background: Colorectal neoplasia causes bleeding, enabling detection using Faecal Occult Blood tests (FOBt). The National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) guaiac-based FOBt (gFOBt) kits contain six sample windows (or ‘spots') and each kit returns either a positive, unclear or negative result. Test kits with five or six positive windows are termed ‘abnormal' and the subject is referred for further investigation, usually colonoscopy. If 1–4 windows are positive, the result is initially ‘unclear' and up to two further kits are submitted, further positivity leads to colonoscopy (‘weak positive'). If no further blood is detected, the test is deemed ‘normal' and subjects are tested again in 2 years' time. We studied the association between spot positivity % (SP%) and neoplasia. Methods: Subjects in the Southern Hub completing the first of two consecutive episodes between April 2009 and March 2011 were studied. Each episode included up to three kits and a maximum of 18 windows (spots). For each positivity combination, the percentage of positive spots out of the total number of spots completed by an individual in a single-screening episode was derived and named ‘SP%'. Fifty-five combinations of SP can occur if the position of positive/negative spots on the same test card is ignored. The proportion of individuals for whom neoplasia was identified in Episode 2 was derived for each of the 55 spot combinations. In addition, the Episode 1 spot pattern was analysed for subjects with cancer detected in Episode 2. Results: During Episode 2, 284 261 subjects completed gFOBT screening and colonoscopies were performed on 3891 (1.4%) subjects. At colonoscopy, cancer was detected in 7.4% (n=286) and a further 39.8% (n=1550) had adenomas. Cancer was detected in 21.3% of subjects with an abnormal first kit (five or six positive spots) and in 5.9% of those with a weak positive test result. The proportion of cancers detected was positively correlated with SP%, with an R2 correlation (linear) of 0.89. As the SP% increased from 11 to 100%, so the colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate increased from 4 to 25%. At the lower SP%s, from 11to 25%, the CRC risk was relatively static at ∼4%. Above an SP% of 25%, every 10-percentage points increase in the SP%, was associated with an increase in cancer detection of 2.5%. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a strong correlation between SP% and cancer detection within the NHS BCSP. At the population level, subjects' cancer risk ranged from 4 to 25% and correlated with the gFOBt spot pattern. Some subjects with an SP% of 11% proceed to colonoscopy, whereas others with an SP% of 22% do not. Colonoscopy on patients with four positive spots in kit 1 (SP% 22%) would, we estimate, detect cancer in ∼4% of cases and increase overall colonoscopy volume by 6%. This study also demonstrated how screening programme data could be used to guide its ongoing implementation and inform other programmes.

Background Accurate optical characterisation and removal of small adenomas (

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the diagnosis of bowel pathology and colorectal cancer screening. Adenoma detection rate is a marker of high quality colonoscopy and a high adenoma detection rate is associated with a lower incidence of interval cancers. Several technological advancements have been explored to improve adenoma detection rate. A new device called Endocuff Vision™ has been shown to improve adenoma detection rate in pilot studies. Methods/Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy. All patients above 18 years of age referred for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy who are able to consent are invited to the study. Patients with absolute contraindications to colonoscopy, large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colon cancer or polyposis syndromes, colonic strictures, severe diverticular segments, active colitis, anticoagulant therapy, or pregnancy are excluded. Patients are randomized according to site, age, sex, and bowel cancer screening status to receive Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy on the day of procedure. Baseline data, colonoscopy, and polyp data including histology are collected. Nurse assessment of patient comfort and patient comfort questionnaires are completed post procedure. Patients are followed up at 21 days and complete a patient experience questionnaire. This study will take place across seven NHS Hospital Trusts: one in London and six within the Northern Region Endoscopy Group. A maximum of 10 colonoscopists per site will recruit a total of 1772 patients, with a maximum of four bowel screening colonoscopists permitted per site. Discussion: This is the first trial to evaluate the adenoma detection rate of Endocuff Vision™ in all screening, surveillance, and diagnostic patient groups. This timely study will guide clinicians as to the role of Endocuff Vision™ in routine colonoscopy. Study registration: ISRCTN11821044.

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Aim The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to detect earlier stage cancer in asymptomatic individuals. Early experience suggested that many participants had lower gastrointestinal symptoms before screening. The study evaluated the prevalence of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and consultation behaviour among individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the South of Tyne BCSP Centre. Method Data were collected on all undergoing clinic assessment and colonoscopy. Symptoms were categorized as altered bowel habit (ABH), rectal bleeding (RB), abdominal pain (AP) and unexplained weight loss (UWL). Results Symptoms were present in 65.1% (492/756) of subjects, 64.4% (431/669) of those with a non-cancer diagnosis and 70.1% (61/87) of those with cancer. Among those with a non-cancer diagnosis, symptoms were ABH in 52% (224/431), RB in 81.4% (351/431), AP in 15.3% (66/431) and UWL in 3.0% (13/431). In those with cancer symptoms they were ABH in 33.3% (29/87), RB in 55.2% (48/87) and AP in 11.5% (10/87). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of symptoms in those with a cancer or non-cancer diagnosis. A total of 34.2% (157/459) of individuals with symptoms had consulted their general practitioner, 28.1% (16/57) of those with cancer and 35.1% (141/402) without. Conclusion A large proportion of individuals colonoscoped in the BCSP reported symptoms predating screening. Their prevalence did not differ significantly between cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. The majority had not consulted their general practitioner. Health promotion regarding the importance of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and a risk assessment tool to help select those needing urgent specialist assessment are required.

Background: Colorectal cancer is common in England and, with long-term survival relatively poor, improving outcomes is a priority. A major initiative to reduce mortality from the disease has been the introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Combining data from the BCSP with that in the National Cancer Data Repository (NCDR) allows all tumours diagnosed in England to be categorised according to their involvement with the BCSP. This study sought to quantify the characteristics of the tumours diagnosed within and outside the BCSP and investigate its impact on outcomes. Methods: Linkage of the NCDR and BCSP data allowed all tumours diagnosed between July 2006 and December 2008 to be categorised into four groups; screen-detected tumours, screening-interval tumours, tumours diagnosed in non-participating invitees and tumours diagnosed in those never invited to participate. The characteristics, management and outcome of tumours in each category were compared. Results: In all, 76 943 individuals were diagnosed with their first primary colorectal cancer during the study period. Of these 2213 (2.9%) were screen-detected, 623 (0.8%) were screening-interval cancers, 1760 (2.3%) were diagnosed in individuals in non-participating invitees and 72 437 (94.1%) were diagnosed in individuals not invited to participate in the programme due to its ongoing roll-out over the time period studied. Screen-detected tumours were identified at earlier Dukes' stages, were more likely to be managed with curative intent and had significantly better outcomes than tumours in other categories. Conclusion: Screen-detected cancers had a significantly better prognosis than other tumours and this would suggest that the BCSP should reduce mortality from colorectal cancer in England.

Objectives The UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is based on a strategy of biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing. Positive results are classified as ‘abnormal’ or ‘weak positive’ based on the number of positive windows per kit or need for repeat testing. Colonoscopy is offered to both groups. We evaluate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome in the BCSP. Setting The South of Tyne and Tees (UK) Bowel Cancer Screening Centres. Methods Data were collected prospectively on all individuals who were offered FOB testing and colonoscopy between February 2007 and February 2009. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome. Results Following FOB testing, 1524 individuals underwent colonoscopy, 1259 (83%) after a ‘weak positive’ and 265 (17%) an ‘abnormal’ result. Cancer was detected in 180 (11.8%) and adenomas in 758 (49.7%). Individuals with an ‘abnormal’ result were more likely to have cancer or be ‘high risk’ for the development of future adenomas (110/265, 41.5%) than those with ‘weak positive’ results, (236/1259, 18.7%, P < 0.0001). Those with Dukes stage B, C or D cancers or cancers proximal to the splenic flexure were more likely to have an ‘abnormal’ result. Conclusions The majority of colonoscopies were performed following ‘weak positive’ FOB results. Those with an ‘abnormal’ result were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. The high yield of pathology in both the ‘abnormal’ and ‘weak positive’ groups justifies the need for colonoscopy in both.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for examining the lower GI tract [1]. It plays a fundamental role in investigation of symptomatic individuals and in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) [2,3]. Colonoscopy must be high quality in order to maximize its benefit [4]. Poor-quality colonoscopy is associated with increased interval cancer rates [4]. High-quality colonoscopy involves a complete procedure that provides comprehensive inspection of colonic mucosa [5]. There are a number of markers of colonoscopy quality, [2,6,7] with cecal intubation rate (CIR) historically being the most widely reported [8]. Cecal intubation was previously confirmed by written documentation of the cecal landmarks; however, photo-documentation of the cecum is now the accepted method of confirming colonoscopy completion. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend that such photo-documentation includes images of both the ileocecal valve and the cecum with views of the appendiceal orifice [9]. CIR is variable and many measures have been used to improve it [10–12]. The United Kingdom has engaged in a comprehensive quality improvement program with significant improvements [10,13]. Other countries have demonstrated similar results [14]. Although CIR is an important marker of completion of a procedure, other markers of quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR), bowel preparation, rectal examination and rectal retroflexion, colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT), polyp retrieval, and complication rates [15–21]. Furthermore, comfort scores, tattooing of suspected malignant lesions in the colon, and taking diagnostic biopsies for unexplained diarrhea are seen as quality markers in addition to the rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer [22–25]. Clinician performance in each of these areas is variable, but those who perform well tend to do so across all measures [22]. Among all measures, the most important marker of colonoscopy quality is adenoma detection rate [15–17]. ADR has clearly been shown to correlate with interval cancers [4]. Patients scoped by colonoscopists with high ADRs have lower interval cancer rates [4]. Furthermore, patients scoped by colonoscopists with higher ADRs have lower CRC mortality rates [16]. Polyp detection rate (PDR) can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR [26]. The paper, “Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection,” published in this edition of Endoscopy International Open, explores the link between polyp detection rates and the quality of cecal photo-documentation. The paper reports a correlation between good-quality cecal photodocumentation and higher PDRs, including rightsided polyp detection (although some of these were hyperplastic polyps). Right-sided lesions are of particular interest and it may be that failure to detect them is one reason that screening programs are not adequately preventing right-sided colorectal cancer [27,28]. The reason for the correlation between PDR and image quality may be that colonoscopists who take time to capture convincing cecal images are generally more careful in their withdrawal examination. Another explanation may be that these “meticulous” colonoscopists have better control over the endoscope, which leads to better mucosal visualization. Longer mean CWTs are associated with increased adenoma detection, and are more relevant than total procedure times, as the majority of mucosal visualisation occurs on withdrawal of the colonoscope [19,29]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in procedure duration between “meticulous” and “non-meticulous” endoscopists in this study, the

Despite serious reservations expressed during consultation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recently issued referral guidance for suspected colorectal cancer in which faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is recommended for certain low risk symptomatic patients.1 2 We believe that this will lead to false reassurance and delayed investigations. We should like to point out that

Background The aim of the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is to diagnose early colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. However, other findings are also reported at screening colonoscopy. Small studies demonstrate findings other than cancer or adenomas (non-neoplastic findings (NNF)) in 11–25%. Objectives and setting Describe the frequency and nature of NNF within the BSCP. Methods Data were obtained from the BCSP national database for all individuals undergoing colonoscopic investigation after positive faecal occult blood testing between August 2006 and November 2011. Data included demographics, smoking status, neoplastic findings and NNF. Results 121728 colonoscopies were analysed. ≥1 NNF were found in 26251 cases (21.6%). Diverticular disease (18875 cases) and haemorrhoids (7011) were the most frequently reported. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was reported in 2152 cases. Individuals with a neoplastic diagnosis were less likely to have an NNF than those without (19.8% v 24.4%, p Conclusions The BCSP generates a significant volume of NNF. A small proportion of individuals were found to have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) - an important diagnosis with implications for long-term management. BCSP participants should be aware that findings other than neoplasia may be detected and the relevance of these findings to that individual is not known. Reporting of NNF varies between colonoscopists, and potential underreporting is a limitation of this study. Further study is required to establish the impact of NNF on primary and secondary care.

Background and study aims: The English National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP) is one of the world’s largest organized screening programs. Minimizing adverse events is essential for any screening program. Study aims were to determine rates and to examine risk factors for adverse events. Patients and methods: Bleeding and perforations in NHSBCSP colonoscopies between August 2006 and January 2012 were examined. Logistic regression was used to examine risk factors for adverse events, including age, gender, polyp size, morphology, and location. For accurate attribution of adverse events, procedures with resection of only one polyp (“single-polypectomy”) were analyzed in detail. Results: 130 831 colonoscopies (167 208 polypectomies) were analyzed, including 30 881 single-polypectomies. Overall bleeding rate was 0.65 %, rate of bleeding requiring transfusion was 0.04 % and perforation rate was 0.06 %. Polypectomy increased bleeding risk 11.14-fold and perforation risk 2.97-fold. Cecal location (but not elsewhere in the proximal colon) and increasing polyp size were the two most important risk factors for bleeding and perforation. After adjustment for polyp size, the odds ratio (OR) relative to the distal colon for bleeding requiring transfusion after cecal snare polypectomy was 13.5 (95 %CI 3.9 – 46.4) and for perforation after cecal nonpedunculated polypectomy it was 12.2 (95 %CI 1.2 – 119.5). Conclusion: This is the largest study focusing on polyp-specific risk factors. We have confirmed that the greatest risk factor for both post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation is polyp size. This is the first demonstration of substantial and significantly increased risk for both noteworthy bleeding (requiring transfusion) and perforation from cecal polypectomy for a given polyp size, compared with elsewhere in the colon.

Adenoma detection is a key objective of colonoscopy, particularly in the context of colorectal cancer screening. The aim of this observational study was to identify the technical colonoscopy factors associated with adenoma detection.The study analyzed data from the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. The indication for all colonoscopies was a positive fecal occult blood test. The relationships between the following colonoscopy factors and adenoma detection (one or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, right-sided adenomas, and total number of adenomas) were examined in multivariable analyses: bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation, withdrawal time, rectal retroversion, colonoscopist experience, antispasmodic use, sedation use, and start time of procedure. The following patient factors were controlled for: age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, deprivation, and geographical location.A total of 31088 colonoscopies were analyzed. The following technical factors increased the relative risk of adenoma detection (P 0.001 in multivariable analysis unless otherwise stated): cecal intubation, increased withdrawal time, higher quality bowel preparation, intravenous antispasmodic use, earlier procedure start time within a session (P = 0.018), and greater colonoscopist experience. Detection of advanced and right-sided adenomas also increased with these factors. Adenoma detection did not differ between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy (P = 0.143).This study demonstrated important associations between colonoscopy practice and adenoma detection. Use of intravenous antispasmodic was associated with increased adenoma detection. The effect of the start time of colonoscopy suggests that endoscopist fatigue may have a deleterious impact on adenoma detection.

The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NHS BCSP) was developed to improve outcomes from colorectal cancer, the third most frequent cancer and the second highest cause of cancer deaths in the UK. Screening pilot programs were developed after previous trials demonstrated a reduction in mortality with the use of fecal occult blood population screening. A successful pilot period led to the roll out of national biennial screening for all 60-69 year olds in 2006, and extended to 60-74 year olds in 2010. To the end of 2012, there have been over 16 million invitations to screening, with uptake of 55.35%. FOBt positivity was 2.08%. Almost 15,000 cancers have been identified; screen-detected cancers have been shown to be at an earlier stage than non-screen-detected, with 35% Dukes' stage A. The BCSP provides high quality colonoscopy with low adverse events rates. It is also a rich data source for research.

Background Large sessile or flat colonic polyps, defined as polyps at least 20 mm in size, are difficult to treat endoscopically and may harbour malignancy. The aim of this study was to describe their current management to provide insight into optimal management. Methods This retrospective observational study identified patients with large sessile or flat polyps detected in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 2006 and 2009. Initial therapeutic modality (surgical or endoscopic), subsequent management and outcomes were recorded. The main outcome measures analysed were: presence of malignancy, need for surgical treatment, complications, and residual or recurrent polyp at 12 months. Results In total, 557 large sessile or flat polyps with benign appearance or initial histology were identified in 557 patients. Some 436 (78·3 per cent) were initially managed endoscopically and 121 (21·7 per cent) were managed surgically from the outset. Seventy of those initially treated endoscopically subsequently required surgery owing to the presence of malignancy (19) or not being suitable for further endoscopic management (51). Residual or recurrent polyp was present at 12 months in 26 (6·0 per cent) of 436 patients managed endoscopically. There was wide variation between centres in the use of surgery as a primary therapy, ranging from 7 to 36 per cent. Endoscopic complications included bleeding in 13 patients (3·0 per cent) and perforation in two (0·5 per cent). Conclusion Management of large sessile or flat colonic polyps is safe and effective in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Wide variation in the use of surgery suggests a need for standardized management algorithms. Presented to a meeting of the British Society of Gastroenterology, Birmingham, UK, March 2011

Increasing colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) is thought to be associated with increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). Current English guidelines recommend a minimum CWT of 6 minutes. It is known that in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England there is wide variation in CWT. The aim of this observational study was to examine the relationship between CWT and ADR.The study examined data from 31 088 colonoscopies by 147 screening program colonoscopists. Colonoscopists were grouped in four levels of mean CWT ( 7, 7 - 8.9, 9 - 10.9, and ≥ 11 minutes). Univariable and multivariable analysis (binary logistic and negative binomial regression) were used to explore the relationship between CWT, ADR, mean number of adenomas and number of right-sided and advanced adenomas.In colonoscopists with a mean CWT 7 minutes, the mean ADR was 42.5 % compared with 47.1 % in the ≥ 11-minute group (P 0.001). The mean number of adenomas detected per procedure increased from 0.77 to 0.94, respectively (P 0.001). The increase in adenoma detection was mainly of subcentimeter or proximal adenomas; there was no increase in the detection of advanced adenomas. Regression models showed an increase in ADR from 43 % to 46.5 % for mean CWT times ranging from 6 to 10 minutes.This study demonstrates that longer mean withdrawal times are associated with increasing adenoma detection, mainly of small or right-sided adenomas. However, beyond 10 minutes the increase in ADR is minimal. Mean withdrawal times longer than 6 minutes are not associated with increased detection of advanced adenomas. Withdrawal time remains an important quality metric of colonoscopy.

Background The naturally-occurring omega (ω)-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) reduces colorectal adenoma (polyp) number and size in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. The safety profile and potential cardiovascular benefits associated with ω-3 PUFAs make EPA a strong candidate for colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention, alone or in combination with aspirin, which itself has recognized anti-CRC activity. Colorectal adenoma number and size are recognized as biomarkers of future CRC risk and are established as surrogate end-points in CRC chemoprevention trials. Design The seAFOod Polyp Prevention Trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial ‘efficacy’ study, which will determine whether EPA prevents colorectal adenomas, either alone or in combination with aspirin. Participants are 55–73 year-old patients, who have been identified as ‘high risk’ (detection of ≥5 small adenomas or ≥3 adenomas with at least one being ≥10 mm in diameter) at screening colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Exclusion criteria include the need for more than one repeat endoscopy within the three-month BCSP screening period, malignant change in an adenoma, regular use of aspirin or non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, regular use of fish oil supplements and concomitant warfarin or anti-platelet agent therapy. Patients are randomized to either EPA-free fatty acid 1 g twice daily or identical placebo AND aspirin 300 mg once daily or identical placebo, for approximately 12 months. The primary end-point is the number of participants with one or more adenomas detected at routine one-year BCSP surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary end-points include the number of adenomas (total and ‘advanced’) per patient, the location (left versus right colon) of colorectal adenomas and the number of participants re-classified as ‘intermediate risk’ for future surveillance. Exploratory end-points include levels of bioactive lipid mediators such as ω-3 PUFAs, resolvin E1 and PGE-M in plasma, urine, erythrocytes and rectal mucosa in order to gain insights into the mechanism(s) of action of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination, as well as to discover predictive biomarkers of chemopreventive efficacy. The recruitment target is 904 patients. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05926847

Background: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. Methods: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. Results: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P

Objectives Colonoscopy is central to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Success of CRC screening is dependent on colonoscopy quality. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing to 60–74 year olds and colonoscopy to those with positive FOB tests. All colonoscopists in the screening programme are required to meet predetermined standards before starting screening and are subject to ongoing quality assurance. In this study, the authors examine the quality of colonoscopy in the NHS BCSP and describe new and established measures to assess and maintain quality. Design The NHS BCSP database collects detailed data on all screening colonoscopies. Prospectively collected data from the first 3 years of the programme (August 2006 to August 2009) were analysed. Colonoscopy quality indicators (adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate, colonoscopy withdrawal time, caecal intubation rate, rectal retroversion rate, polyp retrieval rate, mean sedation doses, patient comfort scores, bowel preparation quality and adverse event incidence) were calculated along with measures of total adenoma detection. Results 2 269 983 individuals returned FOB tests leading to 36 460 colonoscopies. Mean unadjusted caecal intubation rate was 95.2%, and mean withdrawal time for normal procedures was 9.2 min. The mean ADR per colonoscopist was 46.5%. The mean number of adenomas per procedure (MAP) was 0.91; the mean number of adenomas per positive procedure (MAP+) was 1.94. Perforation occurred after 0.09% of procedures. There were no procedure-related deaths. Conclusions The NHS BCSP provides high-quality colonoscopy, as demonstrated by high caecal intubation rate, ADR and comfort scores, and low adverse event rates. Quality is achieved by ensuring BCSP colonoscopists meet a high standard before starting screening and through ongoing quality assurance. Measuring total adenoma detection (MAP and MAP+) as adjuncts to ADR may further enhance quality assurance.